You really are stretching things to claim that what I quoted from the rules only refers to genocide. I think "Calls for the death of innocents" comes pretty close to covering "we should remind them that one missile could take out Mecca".
I have never called for the death of innocents.
The point I made (i.,e,, reminding them) is perfectly valid. It is well supported by history.
Remember the strategic chess game of the cold war?
I was all for the maintenance of the NATO nuclear triad during the cold war (ICBM's, strategic bombers, and ballistic submarines). Even if the Soviets, in a surprise pre-emptive attack, had managed to take out both the ICBM silos and the strategic bomber bases, the third leg of the triad was virtually invulnerable. The ballistic submarines were virtually undetectable.
I remember what Carter said during his presidency. It was 30 years ago, but I remember reading this in either Time Magazine or Newsweek. At that time NATO had 40 of those types of submarines in their fleet. At any given time 15 were at sea. Any two of those could destroy every major city in the Soviet Union. Carter said that publicly. In so doing, he was reminding the Soviets that there would be consequences no matter what they did. I am sure there were people in Moscow who could read English in Time and/or Newsweek as well as I could.
Does that mean that Carter was in any way advocating the genocide of innocents in making such a statement (i.e., reminding the American public, and in so doing reminding the Soviets)? Do you think Carter was prejudiced? Of course not! He was just reassuring the American people that he was keeping his powder dry.
It is not abusive at all to remind anybody (or country or regime) that if they do something we don't like, there will be consequences. I am concerned for the safety of the millions of foreign (and mostly kufar) foreign workers in Saudi Arabia. If the saudis become abusive of them, then there damn well should be consequences.
And speaking for myself, I don't like what the Saudis do. Is there a regime on this planet that is more abusive of human rights? I don't so, and I don't think I am alone in that sentiment. By supporting these radical and murderous madrasses around the world with their oil money (according to Baal...about $80 billion), they are not our friends. I don't have to like it, and I feel perfectly free to say I don't like it.
By the way, do you think it's a stretch to believe that the Israelis have a nuke pointed at Mecca? We are hypothesizing consequences again. I don't know that they do, but in the event that Iran gets nukes and tries to use them on Israel, what do you think Israel would do? I rather suspect that the Israelis are keeping their powder dry too. Do you think Israelis are advocating an Iranian genocide? Some people probably think yes, but I think that if the Israeli regimes of the last 40 years were inclined that way, they would have done it by now.
(Please note, if Iran does get nukes, I don't believe that Israel would be their first priority in terms of whom they want to push around. I think Iran has other fish to fry, but that is the subject of a separate debate).